Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PIP - The Dark Triad (Y2) - Coggle Diagram
PIP - The Dark Triad (Y2)
Dark side of human nature - causes and theories
Narcissism (Raskin and Hall, 1979) -
Grandiosity, dominance, entitlement and egotism
Normal personality trait, but also a personality disorder
Machiavellianism (Christie and Geis, 1970) -
Manipulativeness, cynicism, pragmatic morality
Psychopathy (Hare, 1991) -
Impulsivity, thrill seeking, lack of empathy or anxiety
One common latent variable 'Dark Core' - CFA (Jonason and Webster, 2010; Lee et al, 2012):
High agency, low communion, low agreeableness, empathy and honesty/humility - each of the traits then adds a unique element to this dark core
Dark triad -> Furnham et al, 2013 - unique elements:
-> Narcissism - self-enhancement
-> Machiavellianism - cheating
-> Psychopathy - impulsivity
Measuring dark triad traits - use of self report method; one example is the Dirty Dozen (Jonason and Webster, 2010)
Dark Tetrad:
Theory that expands the triad; adds Everyday Sadism (Buckels, Jones and Palhaus, 2013)
Callousness, enjoyment of cruelty, seek opportunities to cause suffering
Correlates at .4-.6 with machiavellianism and psychopathy
Shares the dark core of low agreeableness, empathy, and honestly/humility
Predicts vandalism, online trolling behaviour (Sest and March, 2017) and enjoyment of violent video games (Greitmeyer et al, 2019)
However, it may not be distinct from psychopathy and requires more research as a result (Palhaus, 2014)
Evolutionary theory of Dark Triad -
Short term, agentic, exploitative social strategy (Jonason et al, 2010)
-> Exploit other group members to serve own survival
-> Attract mates at expense of competitors
-> Fast life history strategy (low K-factor)
Fluctuating selection -
-> Adaptive in larger, looser social groups
-> For as long as 'not found out'
Negative frequency dependent selection
-> Adaptive if small groups - short term gain
All traits rated on these dimensions - low communion and high agency
-> Dominant-submissive dimension -> based on agency
-> Warm-cold dimension -> based on communion
All traits show a tendency to refuse stability - move on from friends, places and roles more quickly when they are discovered
Three correlated constructs (Palhaus and Williams, 2002) - rekated enough to be separate traits but to be a collective triad of personality
Low agreeableness and low honesty/humility
More prominent in men than women - however, this difference is reducing with more research
Cross-cultural evidence for the structure and correlations of these traits, suggesting they are universal (Rogoza et al, 2020)
Construction of the triad in lieu with OCEAN model - Palhaus and Williams, 2002 & Furnham et al, 2013
-> Narcissism - involves self-enhancement (biased self rating and over claiming), with high extraversion and openness, negative correlation with low neuroticism - shares O and E with psychopathy
--> Self-enhancement - over-estimation test - high narcissists are more likely to over claim to make themselves look more knowledgeable than they are
-> Psychopathy and machiavellianism correlated to low conscientiousness
--> Narcissists and psychopaths are more similar, as they involve themselves socially, whereas machiavellianism tends to show more reservation
The Dark Triad: Furnham et al, 2018
All traits have adaptive and maladaptive elements
Even psychopathy appears to pay off in the short term for mating styles
Findings are consistent with evolutionary arguments
Suggested that all three traits are rich and distinctive
-> There are conceptual and empirical overlaps between the traits
-> However, psychopathy measures are sometimes too broad - Machiavelleniasm and narcissism are distinct traits
--> Kessler et al, 2010 - broadened scope of Machiavellianism
--> Jones and Paulhus, 2009 - retained original elements from Machiavelli
--> Mixture of decisions about the scope of the traits, but it is generally agreed they are distinct traits
-> Some research has suggested there is a core component and each trait is a unique quality (Giammarco et al) - can analyse the initial component and then use multiple regressions for each trait
Narcissism has been divided into grandiose and vulnerable facets (Ackerman et al, 2012)
Psychopathy has been divided into primary and secondary forms (Leveson et al, 1995)
-> Secondary and vulnerable are less relevant to Dark Triad - however, Ziegler and Lammale, 2012, have shown the relevance of analysing the facets of each trait to determine placement of individual differences - some facets are more key to the Dark Triad than others
Some argument for addition of sadism as its own dimension - Dark Tetrad (Chabrol et al, 2009)
-> Status-driven risk taking and borderline personality have also been suggested (Visser, Pozzebon and Tamayo, 2012)
Callousness is cemented as the necessary condition, and this is met by all three traits and sadism
Further research is needed to distinguish the Dark Triad from social dominance orientation, aggression sensitivity (Lawrence, 2006) and sensational interests (Egan et al, 2005)
-> Empirically, the challenge is within the explanatory power of the Dark Triad variables over unsavory tendencies - personality development suggests that these traits come prior to other alternatives, and there is strong evidence for the genetic components of the triad (Martin et al, 2008)
Although they are distinctive, some individuals possess more than one Triad trait, and a subgroup with all three traits is likely in any large community
Back et al, 2013: NARC model
Two dimension model of narcissism - admiration and rivalry
-> They are related dimensions, but they have very different nomological networks and distinct intra- and interpersonal consequences
-> Show different relations to Big Five and Narcisstic Personality Inventory
Vernon et al, 2008 -
Behavioural genetic investigation of the Dark Triad variables and their relation to Big Five traits
-> Significant correlations - largely due to genetic factors
-> All traits were influenced by genetic and non-shared environmental factors
-> Machiavellianism also showed an element of shared environment
Lack of correlation between Machiavellianism and psychopathy - they can overlap, but it is not empirically significant
Narcissism correlates with extraversion and openness (high), and low agreeableness
Machiavellianism negatively correlates to agreeableness and conscientiousness, and positively with neuroticism
Psychopathy negatively correlated to agreeableness and conscientiousness
This suggests that they are correlated traits but that they are distinct from one another
Genetic component -
Machiavellianism is only somewhat heritable, and shows more influence from shared environment
Psychopathy and narcissism have moderate-to-large heritability
This suggests that Machiavellianism is a learned trait (could explain correlation non-significance - you are machiavellianian or psychopathic)
Big Five traits are entirely genetic or non-shared environment
The correlations between the two trait groups can be concluded as being the result of similar genes, particularly with psychopathy and agreeableness
There is a high importance of genetic and non-shared environment factors in causing the traits
Components of the traits
Machiavellianism is uni-dimensional and less clear (Hunter et al, 1982)
Components of narcissism (Barry and Malkin, 2010 and Back et al, 2013)
High agency and low communion (dominant and cold) - two dimensions
Agentic - admiration; extraversion - high agency, assertive, confident, dominant, self-sufficient, high self-esteem
Antagonism (rivalry) - low communion, puts down others, entitled, exploitative, defensive and hostile
Adaptive (admiration) and maladaptive (rivalry) -
Adaptive traits - authority, self-sufficiency and high self-esteem
Maladaptive traits - entitlement, exploitativeness, exhibitionism
Joint traits - vanity and superiority
Current model - Narcissistic admiration and Rivalry Concept (NARC model - Back et al, 2013)
Levels of the traits can fluctuate based on social context - ego threat rather than boost can depend on the social context
The NARC model - Back et al, 2013 -
Underlying motivation - Maintenance of grandiose self
High agency -> assertive self-enhancement
Low communion -> antagonistic self-protection (defensive)
Behavioural dynamics -
Following from high agency -> admiration traits -> striving for uniqueness + grandiose fantasies = charming
Following from low communion -> rivalry traits -> striving for supremacy + devaluation = aggression
Social interaction outcomes -
Admiration -> social potency = short term attraction and success
-> Feeds back into grandiose fantasies
Rivalry -> Social conflict = long term dislike and relationship problems
-> Feeds back into devaluation
The social interactions feedback into the underlying motivation, with social potency causing an ego boost and social conflict causing an ego threat
Either seeking admiration or beating those who rival them
Components of psychopathy - Falkenbach et al, 2007 -
Instrumental - primary traits -
-> Shallow affect, low empathy, interpersonal coldness = emotionally stable psychopaths
Hostile / reactive - secondary traits -
-> Impulsivity, irresponsibility, aggression = aggressive psychopaths
Depends on situation - can fluctuate between the two
Applying the Dark Triad
Sexual behaviour - high scorers more likely too:
Engage in short term/unrestricted sex (Jonason et al, 2009)
Use sexual coercion (especially P in men and N in women) - Lyons et al, 2020
Poach mates from others but have mates poached from them (N and P only) - Jonason et al, 2010
Retain mates using aggressive, agentic tactics (Jonason et al, 2010)
All signs of low K-factor - supported by direct correlation between Dark Triad (mostly P) and self-reported K (Jonason et al, 2010)
Use sex as power / thrill seeking
Aggressive behaviour -
Self-reports (Jonason and Webster, 2010)
-> Psychopathy - physical, verbal and premeditated aggression
-> Machiavellianism - physical, verbal and hostility
-> Narcissism - hostility and reactive (narcissistic rage)
Self-reports - social or recall bias, forgetting some acts of aggression or not feel they are aggressive as the behaviour is normalised to them
Narcissism and aggressive behaviour (Bushman and Baumeister, 1998):
Had participants write an essay on an assigned topic
Told them that the essays were being peer marked - given fake feedback; one condition of great feedback, one condition of negative feedback
Told afterwards they would play a computerised game with other participant; every time they won, they were allowed to blast white noise in the other participant's headphones
Level 10 was the most painful volume of white noise; in the praise condition, there was a positive relationship between narcissism and aggression, but the effect was significantly stronger in the ego threat condition
Suggests that narcissism is a precursor to aggression, which is worsened by threats to them
Cruelty - Buckels et al, 2013:
Study 1 - Sadism -> choice of task = higher pleasure after killing bugs than other tasks
Study 2 - Sadism and psychopathy -> white noise blasts to innocent people
-> Only sadism - willing to work in order to blast the opponent
Antisocial and criminal behaviour
Williams et al, 2001 - self-report in students -
Psychopathy - all delinquent behaviour, including serious crime
Machiavellianism - bullying and minor crime
Narcissism - bullying, drugs, anti-authority acts, minor crime
Williams et al, 2010 - academic cheating -
Turnitin plagiarism related to all but strongest to psychopathy (r=.22)
Not due to lower verbal ability
Self-reported cheating mediated by unrestrained agency and lack of moral inhibition
Blickle et al, 2006 - White collar criminals higher in narcissism than current managers
Hepper et al, 2014 - young offenders higher in narcissism (especially entitlement) v community members, but this is mediated by low empathy
Widespread evidence for high psychopathy in offenders - meta-analysis (d = .55, Leistico et al, 2008)
-> But mostly used clinical measures and little attention to subcomponents
-> Psychopathy is the unified theory of crime (DeLisi, 2009)
Narcissism and relationships
Group perceptions - Palhaus, 1998 -
Correlations between narcissism and peer ratings - peer ratings decreased they spent more time with them (social conflict)
Study 2 - high ratings on arrogant, tends to brag and overestimates abilities
Romantic relationships -
Ludus love style, low commitment, focus on alternatives (Campbell and Foster, 2007)
Relationships end quickly, partner unhappy (Foster et al, 2003)
Wurst et al, 2016 -
-> Narcissists attractive for short term flings
-> But predicts conflict and lower quality long term (maladaptive rivalry component)
Organisational nd workplace implications -
Pros - Dark niches (Palhaus, 2014):
Narc - confident, leaders, visionary
Mach - networking, publicly behave in socially desirable ways
Psyc - emotionless, ruthless, achievement-focused
Cons -
Narc - free ride, aggressive
Mach - unethical, manipulative, untrustworthy
Psyc - take risks, lack empathy, disregard others/responsibilities, antisocial
Nature v nurture
Vernon et al, 2008 - twin study of Dark Triad and Big Five:
75 pairs of MZ twins and 64 of DZ adult twins
-> Narcissism - 59% genetics (overlap with agreeableness and extraversion), 41% non-shared environment
-> Psychopathy - 64% genetics (overlaps with A and C), 32% non-shared environment
-> Machiavelliansm - 31% genetics (A and C overlap), 39% shared, 30% non-shared environments
Environmental causes of narcissism -
Detectable from age 8
Wounded or spoilt children - evidence supports the spoilt hypothesis (parental overevaluation, leniency, indulgence) - Cramer, 2011; Horton et al, 2006; Otawy and Vignoles, 2006)
-> Longitudinal data and child studies are needed
Considerations and summary -
Traits may change with age
What is the distinction between normal and clinical levels of these traits
How do the genetic causes fit with the evolutionary experience?
Are they good or bad traits - situational
They are overlapping, but distinct traits
Can be viewed as a short term evolutionary strategy that has a core of low communion and high agency
Narcissistic concern with self-enhancement is described in the Dynamic Self Regulatory Processing model and impacts their relationships
The traits have some genetic basis but environmental causes are not well understood
Althought adaptive in some contexts, they have antisocial implications